The best curriculum is not one based on a static body of language, but one which students to cope up with change, to what extent do you agree or disagree

There are always a lot of discussions about what kind of teaching method is better. Whether students should learn some rigid knowledge or should they gain the ability to face different situations. Society has different opinions as opposed to each other, and I agree with the former idea. There are several reasons why I think a static language system is more important than knowing how to tackle changes.

First

, as we all know, simple and static situations are easier than one which has lots of complex conditions, so it is more manageable for beginners to learn about them.

For example

, we always learn some basic theories

first

,

then

try to practice them in the real world.

Second

, every subject has its own logic system behind it. Only when people get the fundamental information can they handle the upper-grade problems based on it.

Finally

, we will forget most of the things that we learned during the course, but the thinking styles and methods will remain. And these kinds of tools can really help us to cope with difficulties,

instead

of some specific skills which we learned to face changes. There are some other ideas about why we should pay more attention to the fundamental body. On the one hand, even though in practice, things will change, they will switch around the central concepts.

As a result

, the best tool is our thinking method, which adds the differences to the basic model we learned before.

On the other hand

, the changes are unpredictable. There is no model or function against them. But the static systems of acknowledgement are always moving forward. The more people learn about the essential concepts, the better performance they will have. So the most important tools are based on theoretical languages. In conclusion, I agree that the best curriculum is based on the static body of language.